D700 Marketing Discussion

I find the marketing process itself to be kinda interesting, so I started this thread. No technical discussions in here

except when they relate to a point you're making.

 

Shun and I had a brief dialogue in another thread about the release of the D700 and how it may or may not steal

sales from the D300 and/or D3. That is one of my areas of thought. Is the market really moving along that quickly

now? 8-9 months from first-ever FX body to first pro-sumer FX body? It seems Nikon is almost releasing too fast,

and they could "get more" out of the D3 and D300.

 

Another thing I'm thinking about is how many "haven't made the switch to digital yet" photographers the D700 will

convert. Do you think there's a lot of film Nikon shooters out there who have been standing by for full frame? And is

the D700 the one to bring them out, or will it be a slightly cheaper version coming down the road? (cheaper because

of technology more than anything)

 

From a marketing standpoint it will be interesting to see how Canon responds. All I've ever heard mention is a 5D

Mk II, but perhaps Canon has a better built 40D-type full frame body up it's sleeve. Maybe Nikon's spies found out!

Intrigue and high tech in the Land of the Rising Sun....

 

And crikey....release some Nikkors already. And not limited-market perspective lenses. I've heard people ask 80-

400 AF-S, 70-200 2.8 VR-II, 70-200 f/4, AF-S primes. Nikon's turning into a camera body company, not the optics

king we know and love! But back to marketing (although it's not D700, per se): Is there really no demand for these

lenses we hear people dream of and ask for?

 

Just some things to think about. An FX sensor really doesn't tempt me at the time, but I still find it all interesting.

Would be neat to shoot my old AI/AIS glass on FX, but not $3000 neat. :)

What is a pro-sumer? Nikon defines the D700 (and the D300) as a professional body. I make a living from photography, and I travel a lot. D3 is too big for me. So my camera of choice will be the D700. That makes it a professional body to me as well.

 

Was the D700 a necessary step for Nikon? Of course it was. It arrives three years after the Canon 5D, but it will be a strong contender in that market segment. The fact that it's launched less than a year after the D3 doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't mean that the D3 will become obsolete. If I needed a camera with a vertical grip, I would buy the D3, which is actually smaller than the D700 with a grip. Horses for courses.

 

The D700 will obviously steal sales from the D3 as well as the D300, but for Nikon, what matters is how many customers they can attract in total, and how much profit they can make from those customers. If they hadn't launched the D700, their customers may have bought products with less economical significance from Nikon, or even worse: moved to Canon or Sony.

 

I'm reasonably sure that the Nikon management knows what will be Canon's (and Sony's) next launches, but I'm also reasonably sure that it's more important for Nikon to find and define their own market niches rather than launch direct competitors to whatever the competition comes up with.

 

Has Nikon become a camera body supplier more than a lens supplier? At the moment, partly yes, but probably mainly because they had some catching up to do. After the launch of the D90 (or whatever) and the 24MP Dsomething, Nikon will have a line-up that is hard to match for anyone. That is particularly true for Canon, who has renewed their entire range except the 5D during the last 12 months, without coming up with anything that excels particularly compared to the available Nikons.

I shoot with a D200. I also love shooting film because of the FF viewfinder! The D700 is only ~95% covererage but then, my F100 is only 96%, so I'm not gonna complain!

 

My problem with the D700 is that with the grip (which I would get) makes the camera taller than the D3 and almost the same price. Would the sensor cleaning and the thumb-pad on the grip sway me towards the D700 over the D3? Don't know. Either way, both are out of my budget.

 

DSLR FF market: What was the release price of the Canon 5D? Was it compariable to the D700?

 

Nikkors: Yes, We need more new non-PC lenses!

 

Sorry if this is kinda off topic.

"Nikon's turning into a camera body company, not the optics king we know and love! "

 

Regarding that comment, Herbert Keppler once noted that digital has flip-flopped the roles of bodies and lenses. Whereas a person would once keep a body for years and build a stable of lenses, now a person can have 3-4 lenses and move through bodies.

 

Everybody knows that no one can live with just 3-4 lenses, though....

Three new bodies in, what is it, 6 months? This rate of new body "inflation" seems to me to be very likely to keep

non-digital photographers waiting. Why buy now when a better, cheaper, one will be along in another 6 months?

 

I have to say I suspect many D300 owners may feel a tinge of irritation at the appearance of the D700.

"DSLR FF market: What was the release price of the Canon 5D? Was it compariable to the D700?"

 

I believe the 5D started out at US$3,000.

What surprises me is that Nikon does not introduce the so called "D3X" 20+MP pro model before the D700, but that should also be coming soon.

 

The $3000 initial price is exactly what I expected, and that should drop to $2500 or so by mid 2009. However, the D700 has more features than I thought. Having 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10, Multi-CAM 3500, etc., the D700 is quite close to the D3 in a lot of ways. The D700 should also be an excellent sports camera that will work very well during the Olympics. At the same time, there should be more downward price pressure on the D3, somewhat blurring the difference between the two.

 

I have pointed out several times that there are reasons the Canon 5D is selling around $1800 or even $1700. Essentially Canon has to deeply discount an old model in order to move remaining stock.

But I don't at all expect Canon to sit still. Expect new product announcements from Canon before the Olympics and certainly before Photokina in September. The 5D replacement is clearly way overdue.

"I have to say I suspect many D300 owners may feel a tinge of irritation at the appearance of the D700."

 

I don't think many buyers will be too upset due to the large price difference.

D300: $1799 (initial)

D700: $2999

$1200 difference. Would most people pay that much more if they had the choice?

 

Yeah, I know the D3 was $3200 more than the D300 so the D300 or D3 choice is a big difference.

Marc,

 

Yes, actually maybe it will be the D3 owners who will be even more annoyed!

As a D300 owner myself, I'll be happy to use both the D300 and D700, for different purposes. Even the D3 cannot match the higher pixel density for using long lenses. Additionally, the fact that the 51 AF points cover a large portion of the frame is a big advantage. On both the D3 and D700, those 51 AF points are too concentrated in the center.

 

Canon originally announced the 5D in August 2005 and priced it at $3299, but they stared providing rebates after merely a few months:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp

 

At this point, the 5D (especially new 5D) is mainly for bottom fishers.

I think it's obvious that Nikon is going after Canon as hard as possible. Nikon has been seriously trying to regain the #1 spot for the past two years. The 700D is obviously an attempt to head off the 5D replacement and steal the show before it got released. Same with the lenses--Nikon has to have them to compete with Canon. I assume that anyone questioning the need for tilt/shift lenses has never used a view camera! I'd take a 24mm PCE over a new 28/35/50/whatever mm f1.4 lens in a heartbeat!

 

I dont' think there are all that many out there shooting film, and if they didn't go for the D3 I have doubts the D700 would do it either. This is now a small market and I really think Nikon was thinking more about the Canon 5D market here.

 

As for stealing sales from other Nikon bodies, probably. Yes, it will take some sales from the D3 but it doesn't matter. Nikon has to have something to compete with the 5D line. It probably won't take many sales from the D300 but obviously some. And if it does, that's great! The D700 costs a lot more, after all. Now let me throw this one out. I hate tying up big $$ in cameras. I've been patiently waiting for the release of the "D90." Instead, the D700 comes out. I think there will certainly be a fair number of people selling virtually new D300 bodies on eBay in the near future. It might well make more sense for me to pick up one of those if cheap enough rather than a D90. I have noticed a strong increase in the number of Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 lenses on eBay the past 10 days. So far it hasn't pushed the prices down much, but I have my hopes that soon it will! I've been looking.

 

 

Kent in SD

Shun--

 

I think one reason Nikon went with the D700 first was that as a lower price point camera, there's a lot more potential customers. That translates into more lens & etc. sales. Clearly, they are after Canon & the #1 spot. Nikon is hammering Canon's profitable mid-price points with the D300, D700, and soon D90. The D60 has received good reviews too. Nikon has decided it's not going to fade away!

 

 

Kent in SD

>What surprises me is that Nikon does not introduce the so called "D3X" 20+MP pro model before the D700, but that should also be coming soon.

 

I suspect that fireworks should appear brightly in the winter skies in time for Christmas (just like last year).

 

For the prosumer or the pro-- (minus-minus) war, Canon better work faster or we might have to ask the last person to turn off the light when they leave the room? :)

"I have pointed out several times that there are reasons the Canon 5D is selling around $1800 or even $1700. Essentially Canon has to deeply discount an old model in order to move remaining stock."

 

Right on! Only Canon knows if Canon has made a profit on the 5D, but I doubt it. That camera was built from the bottom, mostly with unique parts, and they may well be in the same situation that Olympus was in with the E-1: they are hesitant launching a new model until they get rid of old stock. In the end, they have to, and sell what is left for rock bottom prices. Her in Bangkok, a 5D is priced at the same level as a D300 or lower.

 

Nikon seems to have learned their lesson already, and the D700 is apparently to a large extent built by elements from the parts bin. Still, it's a very individual camera, and much more advanced than the 5D, also considering the three years that have passed.

 

So Canon's choice is very simple: either, they have to build a 5DII that is as advanced as the D700, or they have to sell for a lower price. It's the D300/40D situation all over again, and I doubt that Canon likes to end up as runner-up on each and every occasion.

Frankly, unless you are a pro (making a living out of photography), it seems we should all be "bottom fishers", a term that seems to imply the superiority of those who are not. But of course many just like spending a lot of money very frequently - it's what keeps the companies in business.

"What surprises me is that Nikon does not introduce the so called "D3X" 20+MP pro model before the D700, but that should also be coming soon. "

 

I think they are looking very carefully at how Canon is doing with 1Ds Mark 3 sales and pricing. a 24mp class camera really is a specialty item.

 

"Shun and I had a brief dialogue in another thread about the release of the D700 and how it may or may not steal sales from the D300 and/or D3."

 

Unelkss Canopn also gets the successor to the 5D out - not jsut announced but to the market -- swiftly. D700 sales will likely hurt Canon. Same thing with Sony. I have my suspicions that Nikon would ahve liked toi waited awhile longer for deeper market penetration with the D3 but I think they were really trying to beat both Canon and Sony with a pre-emptive strike. Unlike the D3 I don't have numbers on D700 production but I think it must be substantial already if they are to meet their announced goal of having D700 bodies for sale in stores "by late July 2008". I would not be surprised to find out that D700 bodies have been in production and warehoused for several months.

 

I had a brief dialog wit ha major dealer this morning. yesthere will be people who buy a D700 instead of a D3 -- but there will also be a lot of people who ifthey don't already have a D3 will buy a D3 + D700 for backup. A D700 doesn't do everything a D3 does but it is smaller.

 

Will D700 sales "hurt" D300 sales? A lot of people , believe or not, like the APS-C (Nikon DX) size format of the D300 and many more people will look at the price difference between the D30 0and D700 and go with a D300.

 

In all the excitement we tend to forget that these things are small crests on a much larger wave.

Yes, I guess the D700 may take sales from the D3 but if many of the D700 parts are in common with the D3 (and

those that aren't may be in common with the D300) then that will mean more volume for those parts and may

increase the margins on the D3.

 

Hey - Bjorn R. says the 24 mm f/2.8 AIS is great on the D3. I could buy one of these D700 things to go with mine.

Just like the man who found a button and had a suit made to fit ;-)

Robin, in these days I upgrade my DSLR bodies fairly frequently because I think I am a good enough photographer so that I can exploit the advantage of each generation of cameras. Back in 2005, the D2X beat 35mm film and my D100 easily. By the end of last year, the D300 beat the D2X easily. Today, either a D3 or D700 adds the dimension of FX format and the convenience of wide angles ....

 

In my view, each generation of camera is indeed superior. There is no way I can stand 3 frames/sec and the slow AF on the Canon 5D with technology from 3 years ago. I already had my share of 3 frames/sec with the D100 back in 2002.

 

On the other hand, I still use the 500mm/f4 AF-S and 300mm/f2.8 AF-S I bought back in 1998. I almost always switch VR off on the 200-400mm/f4. I don't see much advantage in the new teles. That is why I don't bother to upgrade them.

it would be nice if nikon could make a 24-120mm F/4

"In all the excitement we tend to forget that these things are small crests on a much larger wave."

 

Words of wisdom, Ellis.

 

"A lot of people , believe or not, like the APS-C (Nikon DX) size format of the D300 and many more people will look at the price difference between the D30 0and D700 and go with a D300."

 

I'm one of these. I love the DX format. I love the fast long focal lengths and DOF. The first thing I think about when returning to FF is "how do I get 300/f2.8?"

 

"Shun and I had a brief dialogue in another thread about the release of the D700 and how it may or may not steal sales from the D300 and/or D3."

 

I could see the D700 robbing sales from the D3. The wedding photographer market in particular would lean towards the D700 providing of course it has the same high iso results of the D3.

>> "Will D700 sales "hurt" D300 sales? A lot of people , believe or not, like the APS-C (Nikon DX) size format of the

D300 and many more people will look at the price difference between the D30 0and D700 and go with a D300."

 

I wouldn't necessarily say that I 'like' APS-C sensors, but cameras based around these are cheaper and for me that's a

big factor. Photography is my hobby and leisure interest; I am not a semi-pro or anything like it, I am just a keen

amateur with no ambitions to be anything else. I have no argument based around 'using this camera will enable me to

maximise my income so it will be worth buying it!' And while following this particular hobby I also have to keep on top of

other household/family expenditure areas.

 

Having seen the specs of the D700 I can appreciate its quality, but having also seen its price I know it's definitely not

the camera for me. Today has been a bit of a reality-check, in fact: I now know for certain that I am not a D700

customer. If anything I am now looking even more keenly at the D300, or even (given that I currently shoot with a D80)

the "D90", if/when it appears.

'The wedding photographer market in particular would lean towards the D700 providing of course it has the same high iso results of the D3."

 

Withthe caveats that the hypothetical wedding photographer doesn't think he or she needs some of the big advantages of the D3:

 

dual CompactFlash media slots.

 

100% wysiwyg viewfinder

 

built in vertical grip (you need to add the MB-10D to the D700 for this).

 

higher fps rate (again you get close to this with the MB-10D and two batteries )

 

greater battery capacity (again you get close to this with the MB-10D and two batteries )

 

I can also see someone with a D300 getting a D700 as their prime camera and the D300 becoming the back up or second body.

>> The wedding photographer market in particular would lean towards the D700...

 

As there is not a huge difference in price between a D700 and a discounted D3, I think pros will stick with the D3 - the 2nd card slot is worth it.

 

While the 5D may be basically a 'featureless' camera, its one best attribute, image quality, is still difficult to beat.

 

>>D700 .... there's a lot more potential customers.

 

Except for a select few, I can't see the average photographer (non-pro) paying $3000+ for a body, especially when there are numerous significantly less expensive options that give similar image quality.

Richard, if the 24mm AF-D that we tested is representative of the optics in the Ai-S version, the performance at wide apertures is pretty lousy on the D3. At f/8 acceptable, but the 24-70, 25mm ZF, and 24mm PC-E beat it by a substantial margin. I don't know what kind of conditions Bjorn uses his 24mm but I would shy away from it unless you specifically intend to shoot with it at small apertures.

I too am waiting to see what the D90 brings.

 

With my D70, if I bump the ISO up over 640 or so, I get noise that I'm just not happy with. Note, I do reduce noise in Lightroom (yes, probably not the best choice - but it is what I have). My technique could likely use some improvement too, but that is another matter. At any rate, if Nikon releases a body in the ~$1k range that can shoot cleanly up through ISO 1600, I would just have to fit it into my budget somehow. Really though, apart from a bunch of noise at high ISO and some viewfinder issues, the D70 does everything I need.

 

I'm also waiting for a new wide, fast prime from Nikon. I really like my new 50mm f/1.8, but there are times when I want to go wider.

 

Ah well, I will just have to be patient.